SC On Rape Case Of Minor By Government Servant

OVERVIEW

A three judge division bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde and comprising Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, on the 1st of March ruled for interim protection from arrest for a period of 4 weeks to the Maharashtra State Electricity Production Company Ltd. employee Mohit Subhash Chavan who had allegedly raped a 16 year old minor girl and an FIR was registered for charges under Section 376 (punishment for rape), 417 (punishment for cheating), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 (punishment for penetrative sexual assault) and 12 (punishment for sexual harassment) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012.

The division bench also granted the accused permission to seek regular bail.

During the proceeding, the Chief Justice posed the question of marriage to the accused’s lawyer – “Will you marry the girl?” The lawyer replied that he would act on the instructions of his client in this regard.

BACKGROUND

A government employee of Maharashtra State Electricity Production Company Ltd. by the name Mohit Subhash Chavan repeatedly raped a 16 year old minor girl, who was studying in Standard IX at the time.

The victim was a distant relative of the accused who reportedly entered the victim’s house by the back door and gagged and raped her. He then threatened to throw acid on her face if she let anybody know about the incident.

On the pretext of such threats, the accused raped the girl close to nine or ten times.

The victim reportedly attempted to commit suicide which was thankfully observed by the victim’s mother and on knowledge of the happenings, the mother and daughter went to the police station in order to lodge a complaint.

The mother of the accused arrived at the scene where she dissuaded them from lodging such complaint against her son and made a verbal promise that her son would be marrying the girl once she comes of age, i.e., turns 18 years old.

Based on such promise, they refrained from lodging such complain and also signed blank papers which were later filled to write that the sexual intercourse which the victim and accused indulged into were consensual and that they were involved in a romantic relationship.

On the attainment of majority of the girl, the mother of Mohit Subhash Chavan refused to facilitate their marriage.

Due to such refusal, the petition lodged a complaint against the petitioner on the basis of which an FIR was registered against him under Section 376 (punishment for rape), 417 (punishment for cheating), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 (punishment for penetrative sexual assault) and 12 (punishment for sexual harassment) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012.

FURTHER DETAILS

On gathering knowledge of such FIR registered against him, the petitioner sought Anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court of Jalgaon which was granted to him by such Court on the 6th of January, 2020.

The victim then moved the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court of Bombay before the bench of Justice Mangesh Patil, who observed that the Additional Sessions judge should not have granted the bail to the accused and termed such order as ‘ atrocious’.

The Supreme Court was then moved by the petitioner who claimed that the High Court was wrong in not granting him anticipatory bail, especially sinve he had not violated any of the terms of the bail as had been imposed on him by the Jalgaon Sessions Court.

The Apex Court heard the case in a three judge division bench where the petitioner’s lawyer, Anand Langde claimed that since his client was a Government servant, he not be sent to jail as that would appear as a setback to his career to which Justice Bobde reprimanded the petitioner saying that if that were the case, he should not have seduced and raped the minor girl repeatedly.

The Justice went on to suggest marriage of the victim and the accused and asked the petitioner’s lawyer, “Will you marry the girl?”, to which the petitioner said on record that he has offered marriage to the victim who supposedly refused to marry him, and subsequently, he got married to another woman.

CONCLUSION

Chief Justice SA Bobde, in justification to the question of marriage, wanted to make it abundantly clear that the Court was, in no way, forcing the petitioner to get married to the victim. The CJI said, “You should have thought before seducing and raping the young girl. You knew you are a government servant… We are not forcing you to marry. Let us know if you will, otherwise you will say we are forcing you to marry her.”
After a brief hearing in the matter of the petitioner repeatedly raping the victim, the apex court declined to entertain the petitioner's plea seeking bail and gave him the liberty to seek regular bail. The top court also granted protection from arrest to the petitioner for four weeks.

WHAT IS YOUR OPINION REGARDING THE GRANT OF SUCH PROTECTION? DO YOU THINK THAT THE STANCE OF THE COURT IN POSING SUCH QUESTION IS RIGHT AND JUST? LET US KNOW IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!